THE WILSON FILE - the arrogance at the heart of the innuendo

[nutbean 8,838]

Maybe so and that would be a good result.

I know that Caro is seen as a vitriolic sinister character here and any word in her favour places the "supporter" in the same bracket but I can deal with Demonland thinking I'm evil.

The fact is I said "Whilst she has given us a very hard time she also provides information and in general her information is good" Of course she will be wrong on occasions, we'll wait and see here.

Many of the attacks on her revolve around non core issues, errors of garnish and the fact she has clearly editorialized her position. But in the main she is the one that has disclosed the core matters that have informed us of what's happening and in her absence we have little further to go on. I don't like what is being said but I want to hear it and she tells me.

Unlike many I'm not worried about Caro's editorial, I'm much more interested in what the AFL think and whilst I don't like the stance Caro's has taken it's not unique - many an MFC supporter was against tanking (or to avoid a silly argument) "list management" at the time for a whole raft of reasons.

I like the fact that in the main she reports things that other reporters don't. I like the provision of information. I trust myself to judge her editorial position and make my own decision and FWIW I think Caro is out of step with the majority of non MFC footy supporters who think we are being victimized and did the best thing for the club. I hold that position too.

I'm also astounded people find me threatening because I like reading her articles. So be it.

My reason for my dislike of CW is

1/ she masks opinion as fact and fact as opinion

2/ she exaggerates and distorts opinion/fact and gives too much credence to the insignificant

3/ she chooses to completely ignore facts that are in the public arena or rearrange them if it doesnt suit her argument

4/ she is exceptionally good/talented at doing the first three

She is a top class journalist who has a wide following and many cannot see past the 4 points I have stated and that makes her dangerous. She is no longer measured and thoughtful - she is agenda driven and flawed. Compare her to many other journalists who do much of the above ? In short, the likes of Mark Robinson are just not taken seriously like Carro is - I laugh at the likes of Greg Denham and Mark Robinson - I dislike Carro as she has the talent and smarts to do much better.

[dee-luded 2,959]

I can't see the media letting this go in a quiet way.......The AFL are damned if they do and damned if they don't......But it's got to finish up soon......

Thats why we must keep this pressure up...

...... no pre scribed medicines for this club to swallow....

the commissions can go find another patsy.

[daisycutter 29,892]

out of curiosity.......

has any other club been the target of an afl inquiry lasting 6 months?...(and still going)

royal commissions have been known to complete in this time frame

is there a logical reason for such tardiness especially when it spills over 2 seasons

even if exonerated we will have paid a price

[beelzebub 23,390]

out of curiosity.......

has any other club been the target of an afl inquiry lasting 6 months?...(and still going)

royal commissions have been known to complete in this time frame

is there a logical reason for such tardiness especially when it spills over 2 seasons

even if exonerated we will have paid a price

I cant help but reckon theres a little bit of " hey everyone ...look over there !!" all the whiles others scurry to tidy up their own mess. Just the who and what I'm not certain of.

[hoopla 418]

My reason for my dislike of CW is

1/ she masks opinion as fact and fact as opinion

2/ she exaggerates and distorts opinion/fact and gives too much credence to the insignificant

3/ she chooses to completely ignore facts that are in the public arena or rearrange them if it doesnt suit her argument

4/ she is exceptionally good/talented at doing the first three

She is a top class journalist who has a wide following and many cannot see past the 4 points I have stated and that makes her dangerous. She is no longer measured and thoughtful - she is agenda driven and flawed. Compare her to many other journalists who do much of the above ? In short, the likes of Mark Robinson are just not taken seriously like Carro is - I laugh at the likes of Greg Denham and Mark Robinson - I dislike Carro as she has the talent and smarts to do much better.

Pretty right I reckon.

However, she is beginning to lose respect. Suggestions that Collingwood might get rid of Swan - and that Sam Fisher won't be a leader at St Kilda haven't helped her reputation.

[mauriesy 7,417]

Your reference to 'group think' is just a throw-away line.

I don't throw away anything.

Go and read the original work by Janis and you'll find plenty of correlations, including unquestioned belief in the morality of the group (Melbourne supporters on Demonland); pressure to conform placed on any member (e.g. Fan, Ben-Hur) who questions the group, couched in terms of 'disloyalty' and personal attack; group cohesiveness becoming more important than individual freedom of expression; and a situational context of highly stressful external threats (tanking allegations and possible sanctions).

'The more amiability there is among the members of an ingroup (e.g. Demonland), the greater the danger that independent critical thinking will be replaced by groupthink, which is likely to result in irrational and dehumanising actions directed against outgroups (e.g. AFL, Wilson, Denham, Fitzpatrick, Carlton, Richmond, Fan, Ben-Hur etc.).'

[daisycutter 29,892]

I don't throw away anything.

Go and read the original work by Janis and you'll find plenty of correlations, including unquestioned belief in the morality of the group (Melbourne supporters on Demonland); pressure to conform placed on any member (e.g. Fan, Ben-Hur) who questions the group, couched in terms of 'disloyalty' and personal attack; group cohesiveness becoming more important than individual freedom of expression; and a situational context of highly stressful external threats (tanking allegations and possible sanctions).

'The more amiability there is among the members of an ingroup (e.g. Demonland), the greater the danger that independent critical thinking will be replaced by groupthink, which is likely to result in irrational and dehumanising actions directed against outgroups (e.g. AFL, Wilson, Denham, Fitzpatrick, Carlton, Richmond, Fan, Ben-Hur etc.).'

so maurie...........its AFL groupthink versus Demonland groupthink

may the better side win.......... if only the body politic was so simple

[sue 9,195]

I don't throw away anything.

Go and read the original work by Janis and you'll find plenty of correlations, including unquestioned belief in the morality of the group (Melbourne supporters on Demonland); pressure to conform placed on any member (e.g. Fan, Ben-Hur) who questions the group, couched in terms of 'disloyalty' and personal attack; group cohesiveness becoming more important than individual freedom of expression; and a situational context of highly stressful external threats (tanking allegations and possible sanctions).

'The more amiability there is among the members of an ingroup (e.g. Demonland), the greater the danger that independent critical thinking will be replaced by groupthink, which is likely to result in irrational and dehumanising actions directed against outgroups (e.g. AFL, Wilson, Denham, Fitzpatrick, Carlton, Richmond, Fan, Ben-Hur etc.).'

I don't see much evidence of group think here. Amongst those who take a different position than BH and Fan there is quite a bit of divergence of views. I've seen as much unwarranted abuse from those on the 'outer' as I have seen their motives and loyalty questioned. Which came first? Where do I find the 'original work by Janis' you referred to?

In any case, I don't see much problem with people questioning the motives/hidden agendas of others. They can respond and refute any allegation. I don't see it as serious personal abuse though I can see it might offend a genuine supporter who is accused of it. But after all, it is an anonymous forum and there could be people lurking with nasty intent. So posters should be free to question other's motives which with any response is of interest to forum members. Just everyone cut the mindless abuse, calling people idiots etc. because there can be no excuse for that (and no benefit to the forum.)

In any case, we are not running the MFC. So there are no real dangerous consequences from groupthink by a bunch of anonymous supporters.

[Macca 17,113]

I don't throw away anything.

Go and read the original work by Janis and you'll find plenty of correlations, including unquestioned belief in the morality of the group (Melbourne supporters on Demonland); pressure to conform placed on any member (e.g. Fan, Ben-Hur) who questions the group, couched in terms of 'disloyalty' and personal attack; group cohesiveness becoming more important than individual freedom of expression; and a situational context of highly stressful external threats (tanking allegations and possible sanctions).

'The more amiability there is among the members of an ingroup (e.g. Demonland), the greater the danger that independent critical thinking will be replaced by groupthink, which is likely to result in irrational and dehumanising actions directed against outgroups (e.g. AFL, Wilson, Denham, Fitzpatrick, Carlton, Richmond, Fan, Ben-Hur etc.).'

What if one's opinion is just that - one's opinion ? We don't always post so that it falls into the majority view . I don't reckon there are that many here who post that way . Some do but so what ? I reckon there's quite an eclectic bunch on this site and there are quite a number who are prepared to stick their neck out .

My views on Wilson for instance does not really take into account what others think or write . I have zero respect for her for the way she's treated our club and would say so even if I was a lone voice . She talks utter rubbish - it's obvious . Has nothing to do with group think . Same with our general treatment in the media - unfair and obviously so .

Nearly all the examples you gave don't bother me in the slightest and probably never will . The AFL and Wilson do bother me and many others because many feel that they're trying to damage our club . Hard to argue against that by the way . A large majority thinking a certain way doesn't always fall into the 'group think' category . I'm not saying that you said that by the way maurie, because you didn't . Just my take on proceedings .

And I'm not saying that 'group think' doesn't happen because of course it does .

By the way, is this post one that falls into the 'group think' dynamic ? I could cop plenty of flak or maybe I won't . However, you nearly always know when you are posting in the minority view - you've got to be ready to back it up and no moaning about it either .

What's ironic is that those who are complaining about being singled out are (in a way) on the same page with those who are arguing that the club is being singled out

Edited January 7, 2013 by Macca

[DirtyDees DDC 190]

Is that a serious question ? Obviously the players didn't tank. Even the greatest plans can be laid bare when your servants are desperately trying to win. It doesn't mean that the coach wasn't trying to manipulate a loss.

It's the heart of the matter. If we were tanking in the McMahon game, (and the coach has denied we were) then what were Richmond doing?

[Hannibal 5,814]

If we were tanking in the McMahon game, (and the coach has denied we were) then what were Richmond doing?

Playing [censored]..

[sue 9,195]

Playing [censored]..

I don't think that is a satisfactory rejoinder. If a club is seriously tanking and is in danger of winning with the siren approaching then there is plenty a coach could do to lose the game. I don't recall any ludicrous moves being made in the last few minutes of the game. Did I miss something?

(An example - who forgot to ensure McMahon got a 50 metre penalty - or was the over-the-top interchange rule not in in 2009 . That's a good match fixer without really involving players)?

(That said, I don't doubt that winning every game played was a low priority for the MFC, as it had been for numerous clubs before and since.)

Edit to add that my example above was just being a bit silly. I really mean things like leaving loose players in the oppo's forward line. Or not putting anyone on Travis J for a whole match.

[dee-luded 2,959]

It's the heart of the matter. If we were tanking in the McMahon game, (and the coach has denied we were) then what were Richmond doing?

they wanted scully.

the players didn't know though.

ironically Essendon & Sheedy thru a spanner in the tiges works the week before....Rnd 17 > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_AFL_season#Win.2FLoss_Table

this caused them to go above the priority pick range.

so the tiges aimed at next best pick they could get.

So stop the Dees from getting the priority pick. Rnd 18... is this why we looked so embarassing as the Tiges were trying to cause us to lose the deserved P'Pick... they coached poorly to stuff us up, & we were put in an unenviable position of losing a deserved PP.

[mauriesy 7,417]

I don't see much evidence of group think here.

Well for a start, no one has ever even contemplated the possibility that the AFL could have good reasons for its investigation, or that Wilson might even be substantially right.

Of course I'd prefer that not to be the case, but the character assassinations, conspiracy theories, questioning of motivation and anti-AFL ridicule flow pretty freely when the threat is perceived to be great, regardless of any evidence that might still be to come out.

For example, the post just previous to this one (#1163) is just pure convenient supposition without a shred of evidence.

[Sir Why You Little 37,310]

Well for a start, no one has ever even contemplated the possibility that the AFL could have good reasons for its investigation, or that Wilson might even be substantially right.

Of course I'd prefer that not to be the case, but the character assassinations, conspiracy theories, questioning of motivation and anti-AFL ridicule flow pretty freely when the threat is perceived to be great, regardless of any evidence that might still be to come out.

For example, the post just previous to this one (#1163) is just pure convenient supposition without a shred of evidence.

Maurie Wilson could be right yes, but if she is right on the money a lot more would have come out by now.

As it is she knows a little bit about a lot of things..and has tried to connect them with her own views.

That is how i have read it from story one...i mean saying we tanked against the Aints in 09 is a joke..

They were at the top of their game that year.

[Flying Cloud 152]

Well for a start, no one has ever even contemplated the possibility that the AFL could have good reasons for its investigation, or that Wilson might even be substantially right.

Of course I'd prefer that not to be the case, but the character assassinations, conspiracy theories, questioning of motivation and anti-AFL ridicule flow pretty freely when the threat is perceived to be great, regardless of any evidence that might still be to come out.

For example, the post just previous to this one (#1163) is just pure convenient supposition without a shred of evidence.

Has been some suggstions that some disgruntled ex employees (medical staff) may have fed both Wilson and the the investigation. It may be that those who provided Wilson and the AFL investigators with evidence that Melbourne was "disgusting" may have had second thoughts once it became aparent they may have to appear in a public court room and repeat that same evidence.

One thing to have a grudge and a view and try and score some cheap shots, another again to risk you career by giving evidence in court with a top QC ripping your professional (medical) credentials to pieces.

[Hannibal 5,814]

If a club is seriously tanking and is in danger of winning with the siren approaching then there is plenty a coach could do to lose the game. I don't recall any ludicrous moves being made in the last few minutes of the game. Did I miss something?

So you don't think we "list managed" against Richmond in 09 ?

Forgive me for not going further, Sue. I've wasted too much time already over the years on those that didn't think we were trying to lose that day. I'll merely judge your opinions with the above notion in mind and allow others to place a value on your contributions.

[sue 9,195]

Well for a start, no one has ever even contemplated the possibility that the AFL could have good reasons for its investigation, or that Wilson might even be substantially right.

No one has contemplated the AFL could have good reasons to suspect we tanked????!!! If there is groupthink on this forum, it is saying yes we did, but so did lots of others.

[DirtyDees DDC 190]

Well for a start, no one has ever even contemplated the possibility that the AFL could have good reasons for its investigation, or that Wilson might even be substantially right.

Of course I'd prefer that not to be the case, but the character assassinations, conspiracy theories, questioning of motivation and anti-AFL ridicule flow pretty freely when the threat is perceived to be great, regardless of any evidence that might still be to come out.

For example, the post just previous to this one (#1163) is just pure convenient supposition without a shred of evidence.

The evidence is in their total lack of effort that day, and the knowledge - going into that match - that a Richmond loss could have left them with 4 1/2 wins and the first round draft pick.

[sue 9,195]

So you don't think we "list managed" against Richmond in 09 ?

Forgive me for not going further, Sue. I've wasted too much time already over the years on those that didn't think we were trying to lose that day. I'll merely judge your opinions with the above notion in mind and allow others to place a value on your contributions.

I don't doubt we 'list-managed' and were happy to lose that match. But you just pop me in a box and blast away as usual and didn't respond to the point I was making other than putting me down as someone whose opinion are of low or no value.

I was making the point that is was not sufficient for you to say Richmond played like 'sh!t' to explain how we almost won that game. I suggested serious tanking would have got us 'under the line' that day.

I asked 'Did I miss something', ie where is the evidence of dramatic moves to lose in the last few minutes. Ie. maybe I was wrong.

I don't recall you covering that in any of your previous posts. Please 'waste some more of your time' and point us to those posts if they exist.

[Hannibal 5,814]

I've discussed that game in depth over the years and won't waste further time with another poster.

[Whispering_Jack 31,144]

At this point, it's been decided to temporarily close this thread because there's a fair amount of duplication with the AFL investigation thread. We'll reopen it when we feel it's appropriate - perhaps when Ms. Wilson next rears her head.

Could posters also please familiarise themselves with the Demonland code of conduct.

There's no need for abuse of other posters. Critical responses are fine but outright abuse and bullying are not accepted.

Please try avoiding the derailing of threads and try not to post too often or go on tangents in threads. There's too much of that going on and warnings will be issued and if that doesn't work, we'll reluctantly adopt AFL tactics and apply bans.

Thank you.

[old dee 24,003]

At this point, it's been decided to temporarily close this thread because there's a fair amount of duplication with the AFL investigation thread. We'll reopen it when we feel it's appropriate - perhaps when Ms. Wilson next rears her head. Could posters also please familiarise themselves with the Demonland code of conduct. There's no need for abuse of other posters. Critical responses are fine but outright abuse and bullying are not accepted. Please try avoiding the derailing of threads and try not to post too often or go on tangents in threads. There's too much of that going on and warnings will be issued and if that doesn't work, we'll reluctantly adopt AFL tactics and apply bans. Thank you.

You have my agreement hooray!

[s-t-i-n-g-a 439]

And mine...Jack did you forget to press the close thread button?

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

Well for a start, no one has ever even contemplated the possibility that the AFL could have good reasons for its investigation, or that Wilson might even be substantially right.

Of course we tanked. Everyone knows it.

We did it under the disguise of "list management", following the blueprint laid down by other clubs before us.

Vlad himself gave the green light to this practice.

What has got people up in arms is the sheer unfairness of the current investigation.